Telangana High Court
Mrs. Dr.Chandika Prabhavathi vs Chandika Sambhasiva Raju (Died) on 30 March, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2024
Date:30.03.2026
Between
xxxxxxxxxxxx .....Appellant
and
xxxxxxxxxxxxx .......Respondent
This Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mrs. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for respondent.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant - wife aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2024 passed in OP No.803 of 2005 by the learned Family Court - cum - XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant - wife filed the aforesaid OP No.803 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act, 1984') and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short, 'the Act, 1955') initially against respondent No.1 seeking a declaration 2 that she is his wife and a direction to him to join her conjugal society with the following contentions:-
i. The appellant and 1st respondent are Hindus by religion. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.02.1991 by a reputed purohit. It was love marriage.
ii. After the marriage, she joined marital life and the marriage was consummated.
iii. She is a Naturapathy Doctor. The 1st respondent - husband was a Superintending Engineer. He used to come to Chennai once or twice in a month and stay with the appellant at her parents' house happily.
iv. Both of them maintained joint savings bank accounts in MCCC in Chennai and in Vijay Bank Malakpet branch. v. After retirement, the 1st respondent reduced his visits to Chennai and he used to visit her once in three months or half an year. On 06.03.2000, he took the appellant - wife to Hyderabad, where he was having own house bearing H.No.16-2-674, at Judges colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad and started living in the said house.3
vi. During the census of 2001, he got the appellant's name and his name entered in the electoral role of Malakpet constituency. During her stay at Hyderabad, she came to know that in past, he was living with some lady, who deserted him within six months and thereafter, he kept another lady, who had also left for USA, due to harassment and ill-treatment by him. vii. Since February 2004, he started harassing the appellant on petty issues.
viii. He used to instigate his maid servant, her son-in-law and others saying that she is additional burden to him as he is a pensioner. He used to abuse her in filthy language for nothing. ix. On 06.02.2004, he necked her out of the house. Since then, she resided in a separate house. He got her abused by maid servant in filthy language, for which she lodged a complaint with the Police, Chadharghat police station. The police under the influence of respondent, advised both of them to solve the matter amicably. But he did not change his attitude.
x. He forcibly got her signature on some paper.
xi. She is ready to join him.
4
4. With the said contentions, the appellant - wife sought to declare her as wife of the 1st respondent and direct him to allow her to conjugal society.
5. Opposing the said allegations, the respondent filed counter contending as follows:-
i. He never married the appellant, much less on 06.02.1991. The documents relied upon by her are not proving their marriage. ii. When the marriage is not proved, the question of restitution of conjugal rights does not arise.
iii. He worked as Executive Engineer at Rajhmundry from 1978 to 1981. During the said period, he resided with his wife Smt. Usha Rani i.e. 2nd respondent and three children by names Radha Rani, Padma Rani and Naga Rani, at Dhanavaipeta area of Rajamandry. The appellant's elder sister by name Smt. Ananth Lakshmi worked under him as Typist and resided in the same locality along with the appellant and their father. During the said period, father of the appellant died. On the request of the appellant's family members, and his wife i.e. 2nd respondent, he helped the appellant in her education to train up in Kasturiba 5 Nature Cure Hospital at Shivarampally, Hyderabad and to settle as a Nature Cure Doctor.
iv. The appellant, taking advantage of his support, filed the above OP with false allegations to extract his money and properties. v. There will not be any love or friendship between a teenage girl and 45 years man. Mere opening of joint savings account in any bank, cannot create marital relationship between them. vi. The appellant managed to enter her name in electoral records and also in censes records, without his knowledge, which do not establish marital relationship between both of them. vii. The appellant is well aware that he is having wife i.e. 2nd respondent and three daughters and presently they are residing in USA.
viii. When he never married the appellant, the question of leading matrimonial life with her, does not arise and the appellant has no cause of action to file the above OP.
ix. He has also filed additional counter reiterating the aforesaid contentions.
6. With the aforesaid contentions, the 1st respondent - husband sought to dismiss the petition.6
7. To prove her case, the appellant - wife examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Es.P.1 to P.80. The appellant also filed her additional chief affidavit and documents with an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and got marked Ex.P.57 to P.80. She has also relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4.
8. To disprove the case of the appellant, the 1st respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and his neighbor as R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.9.
9. On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, learned Family Court dismissed the said petition holding that the appellant failed to establish her marriage with respondent No.1 and divorce between the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the appellant is not entitled to be declared as the wife of the respondent No.1.
10. It is the case of the appellant that her marriage was solemnized with the 1st respondent on 06.02.1991. It is a love marriage. She is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. After marriage, she joined with the 1st respondent at Madras. 1st respondent used to work as Superintendent Engineer and worked in several places of Andhra Pradesh and used to visit Chennai once in three months or six months. She alleges that he is having contacts with some ladies. 7
She also alleges that after retirement, she joined with the 1st respondent at Hyderabad where he abused her in filthy language and harassed her saying that he is a burden to him at his old age.
11. During pendency of the OP, 1st respondent died and the appellant impleaded the 2nd respondent, alleging as another wife of the 1st respondent.
12. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he never married the appellant. While he was working as Executive Engineer at Rajhmundry from 1978 to 1981, he resided there with his wife Smt. Usha Rani i.e. 2nd respondent and three children by names Radha Rani, Padma Rani and Naga Rani, at Dhanavaipeta area of Rajamandry. The appellant's elder sister by name Smt. Ananth Lakshmi worked under him as Typist and resided in the same locality. Since father of the appellant died, on the request of her family members, he helped the appellant in her education and made her to settle as a Naturopathy Doctor. The appellant, taking advantage of his support, filed the above OP with false allegations. It is not believable that there will be love or friendship between a teenage girl and 45 years man. Mere opening of joint savings account and entering her name in electoral records and in censes records, without his 8 knowledge, will not establish any marital relationship. The appellant is well aware that he is having wife i.e. 2nd respondent and three daughters. He further contended that when he never married the appellant, the question of leading matrimonial life with her, does not arise and she has no cause of action to file the above OP.
13. It is relevant to note that since the 1st respondent died during pendency of the said OP, learned Family Court dismissed the OP to the extent of restitution of conjugal life. The appellant had not taken steps to bring the legal heirs of the 1st respondent on record. Learned Family Court held that the appellant is not to be declared as wife of the 1st respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred FCA No.169 of 2009 and impleaded 2nd respondent vide order dated 07.10.2015 in FCA MP No.388 of 2012. Vide order dated 24.11.2016, this Court dismissed the said appeal.
14. It is also relevant to note that the appellant filed Review petition vide FCAMP No.417 of 2017 against FCA No. 169 of 2009. Vide order dated 03.08.2023, this Court set aside the order dated 07.04.2009 and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the appellant impleaded the respondent No.2 after the demise of respondent No.1.
9
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is relevant to discuss the evidence, both oral and documentary, of the parties. The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and in her chief - examination, she reiterated the aforesaid contentions. PW.1 also relied upon several documents marked as Exs.P1 to P80. Exs.P1, P3, P5, P7, P8, P12 and P13 - the letters allegedly addressed by the 1st respondent to the appellant. Ex.P11 is the electoral roll entry. Ex.P15 comprises photographs of the appellant and the 1st respondent. Ex.P16 and P17 are pass books relating to bank accounts.
16. However, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she had not filed any proof relating to the ceremonies of marriage such as Mangala Sutra Dharana, Saptapadi or Panigrahanam. She further admitted that she does not know the ceremonies that are usually performed during marriage in her community. She also admitted that the 1st respondent was already married to one Usha Rani and that they had three daughters.
17. PW.1 further admitted that after the death of her father, since their financial condition was weak, the 1st respondent had helped her in pursuing higher education and in establishing herself as a Naturopathy Doctor. She also admitted that the 1st respondent had 10 financially assisted her when she went to England and when she started her naturopathy clinic.
18. The appellant examined PW.2 who is said to be a Pujari of Renuka Yellamma Temple. PW.2 deposed that the appellant and the 1st respondent used to visit the temple and perform pujas together as husband and wife. However, during cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he had not attended the alleged marriage between the parties. He further admitted that he assumed that the appellant was the wife of the 1st respondent because the 1st respondent used to address her as "Ammagaru".
19. The appellant also examined PW.3 and PW.4 who stated that they knew the appellant and the 1st respondent as husband and wife. However, neither of them were witnessed the alleged marriage.
20. On the other hand, the 1st respondent examined himself as RW.1 and reiterated the aforesaid contentions.
21. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he got married to 2nd respondent in the year 1966. He got three children out of their wedlock. He met the appellant in the year 1978 when she was at 20 years old. He denied his marriage with the appellant after obtaining divorce from the 2nd respondent. He admitted that there is 11 joint savings account in his name and the appellant. He admitted that Ex.P.20 which is a copy of voter identity card and stated that the photo of the appellant on the voter card is not visible and there are number of families in the same address.
22. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte in O.P.No.803 of 2005 and even in this case also, there is no representation on her behalf.
23. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the material available on record would show that though the appellant made an effort by producing certain documents, none of the documents establish the factum of her case, much less her marriage as alleged by her with the 1st respondent. The photographs and bank passbooks also do not establish that marriage was solemnized between the parties.
24. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss, Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as follows:
50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact:
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in 12 prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
25. When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct of any person who has special means of knowledge of that relationship is a relevant fact. Such opinion must be based on the conduct of persons who, as members of the family or otherwise, have special knowledge of the relationship.
26. In the present case, the appellant relied upon documents such as letters, photographs, joint bank accounts and the entry in the electoral roll to contend that she was treated as the wife of the 1st respondent. Such material may, at best, indicate the manner in which the parties were perceived in society and may fall within the ambit of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, relating to opinion as to relationship. However, such material by itself cannot establish a marriage, particularly when the appellant failed to prove the performance of essential Hindu marriage ceremonies and when the evidence on record indicates that the 1st respondent had a prior subsisting marriage.
27. It is also relevant to note that appellant - PW.1 admitted that the 1st respondent was already married to respondent No.2 and that 13 the said marriage was subsisting. The appellant has neither pleaded nor proved that the 1st respondent had obtained divorce from respondent No.2 prior to the alleged marriage with her.
28. Ex.P.58 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.P. No.153 of 1973 between the 1st respondent and his wife, C. Venkatramanamma, decided on 11.10.1974. The said O.P. was filed by the 1st respondent under Section 10(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking judicial separation. The marriage between the 1st respondent and his wife, C. Venkatramanamma, was performed on 22.02.1964. By order dated 11.10.1974, the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granted a decree of judicial separation.
29. The said judgment clearly indicates that the 1st respondent had a subsisting marriage prior to the alleged marriage with the appellant. Therefore, the existence of the earlier marriage of the 1st respondent also weakens the claim of the appellant that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent.
30. It is relevant to note that Ex.P.58 indicates that the marriage between the 1st respondent and his wife, Venkata ramanamma was subjected only to a decree of judicial separation, which does not 14 dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Though it is not relevant to discuss, it is pertinent to note that if the 1st respondent had contracted another marriage with respondent No.2 during the subsistence of the said marriage with said Venkata ramanamma, the marriage with 2nd respondent would not be valid in law. However, this circumstance by itself does not establish the appellant's claim of marriage with the 1st respondent, particularly in the absence of evidence showing that a valid marriage was solemnized between them.
31. The Apex court in Smt. Shiramabai w/o Pundalik Bhave v. The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C. Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar state1 held as follows:
"It can be discerned from the aforesaid line of decisions that the law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity."
32. It is true that law raises a presumption in favour of marriage when a man and woman lived together for a long period. However, 1 2023 INSC 744 15 such presumption is rebuttable. When there are circumstances which weaken such presumption, Courts ought not to ignore the same.
33. In the present case, the appellant, during the course of cross- examination, admitted that the 1st respondent had an earlier marriage with 2nd respondent and had three children through the said marriage. The documentary evidence placed on record, particularly Ex.P.58, also indicates that 1st respondent was involved in matrimonial litigation relating to his earlier marriage with the said Venkata ramanamma. However, the appellant has not produced any material to show that the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Further, PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that she has not filed any proof regarding the performance of essential Hindu marriage ceremonies such as Mangala Sutra Dharana, Saptapadi or Panigrahanam. Therefore, in the absence of proof of solemnization of marriage and in view of the admitted existence of a prior marital relationship of the 1st respondent with said Venkata ramanamma, the presumption of marriage cannot be drawn in favour of the appellant.
34. Even the evidence of the other witnesses i.e. P.W.3 - Massagist at Kasturiba Nature Cure Hospital, and P.W.4 - known 16 person examined by the appellant on her behalf is also not at all useful to the appellant to prove her case.
35. It is relevant to note that with regard to a valid marriage and essential ceremonies of marriage in terms of the Act, 1955, vide order dated 07.06.2024 in FCA Nos. 258, 291 and 312 of 2011, this Court has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolly Rani V. Manish Kumar Chanchal 2 wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with a valid marriage and essential ceremonies in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, 1955 etc. The Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
"Section 7 of the Act speaks about ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. Sub-section (1) uses the word "solemnised". The word "solemnised"
means to perform the marriage with ceremonies in proper form. Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be "solemnised". Further, sub-section (2) of Section 7 states that where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi, i.e., the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. Therefore, requisite ceremonies for the solemnisation of the Hindu marriage must be in accordance with the applicable customs or usage and where saptapadi has been adopted, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies such as saptapadi when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage. In other words, for a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue /controversy arise. Unless the parties have 2 2024 INSC 355 17 undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law.
In effect a union of two persons under the provisions of the Act, by way of a Hindu marriage gives them the status and character of being a husband and wife in society. The said status is of significance inasmuch as a man and a woman cannot be treated as a husband and a wife unless a marriage is performed or celebrated with proper and due ceremonies and in the prescribed form. In the absence of any solemnisation of a 12 marriage as per the provisions of the Act, a man and a woman cannot acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other. In the above context, we deprecate the practice of young men and women seeking to acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other and therefore purportedly being married, in the absence of a valid marriage ceremony under the provisions of the Act such as in the instant case where the marriage between the parties was to take place later."
36. Vide order dated 07.06.2024 in FCA No.258, 291 and 312 of 2011 and batch, this Court placing reliance on Dolly Rani (supra), held that proof of essential ceremonies like Saptapadi is mandatory for validating a Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Act, 1955. It further held that the law infers a presumption favourably towards the institution of marriage when any couple have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. However, such presumption can be controverted by a controverting party but heavy onus lies on the person. The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on 18 the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.
37. Therefore, in the absence of proof regarding solemnization of marriage according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and in view of the admissions made by the appellant, she failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent.
38. The learned, Family Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove her marriage with the 1st respondent and consequently dismissed the petition. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned, Family Court. There is no error in it. The impugned order does not require interference of this Court.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ___________________________________ JUSTICE B.R MADHUSUDHAN RAO Date:30. 03.2026.
vvr